Vatican reveals plan to welcome disaffected Anglicans

Frere Charles:

What has one to do with the other? Of their own volition, Catholic priests have taken a vow of celibacy before being ordained (even in the '60's and '70's!) Men who are "ordained" in other sects may have believed at the time that they were called to ministry in the One True Church, but even as such they were not bound to celibacy. If at the present juncture some of these men have come to the realization that they were deceived, and seek to become Catholics, neither the sincerity of their committment nor the reality of their marriage are denigrated; the only thing in question is the validity of their ordination. If they seek to become ordained as Catholic priests - either conditionally or de novo - it would seem to be a sensible expedient to waive the normative condition of celibacy for them, as has been done for many individual ex-Anglican (and even a few ex-Lutheran) ministers who've swum the Tiber. It is frankly ludicrous to suggest that this is analogous to the situation of a priest who either sought a dispensation from his vow of celibacy, or broke it outright, and who now wishes to "have it both ways".

Incidentally, Fr. Hepworth's is something of a unique case due to his previous ordination as a Catholic priest, and I'm certain that Rome will handle it as such. Hard cases - and exceptions - make bad law you know!

well
remember how that Pius X boys from Brazil were relieved of their excommunications WITHOUT HAVING TO REPENT ANY ERROR and AT THE SAME time publicly repeating their Holocaust denials??

They were received as not excommunicated anymore and did not have to do a darn thing! And returned arrogantly smug, even disdainful that they were ever cast forth, and acting almost as if they were STOOPING to return to this Church which they hold ever in at arm's length as itself no longer Catholic!

Meanwhile good and holy priests such as the Reverend Father Ernesto Cardenal and the Reverend Father Miguel D'Escoto (who just finished serving selflessly and courageously as President of the UN Assembly, only to discover all of his efforts for peace and justice blocked at every step - HE should have gotten the Nobvel PEACE prize!) such good and holy and true priests (READ AGAIN the Gospel in SOlentiname!) go to their graves stripped of their public offices . . .

AND BURKE PUT IN CHARGE OF HAND-PICKING US BISHOPS WITH HIS BUDDY BERNIE LAW!!??

"stranger by the day . . ."

but
nihil novi sub sole
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)

It makes one wonder if membership in our Church is a good idea. I for one have great doubts. I am struggling. Speaking out, appears to go on deaf ears. And of course, being a woman adds another spin. The "good old boys" of our church just pass women off as unimportant---or at least, that's how one feels.

Thats why I am married to a man who was previoulsy married (we are for 22 years and 3 kids later!). I follow my conscience. I follow the internal forum. an annulment is not possible. We are good people and God knows our hearts. I receive communion and since pedophile priests were allowed to give the Eucharist out, consecrate the bread and wine and receive it all known by bishops I think I am in a much better category of character! Give me a break! I am furious when I think about it. Logic people Logic!

One assumes that if the man functions as a priest in the Anglican Church (i.e. presiding over the Eucharist), then he will continue to be allowed to do this when his churches become part of the Catholic Church. One assumes that if he presides, then he partakes, unlike the divorced and remarried, never anything but Catholic, Catholics. However! This may be just what divorced and remarried Catholics need, a "Catholic" church where they can take part in the eucharist.

Thank you. It is a good point. Some of us may be getting ahead of ourshelves here. It will be an issue to closely watch.

Fr Philip, while I agree with your assesment re Hepworth's future (but not necessarily with your tone), I doubt very much that you gained it by "reading the Apoltolic constitution" - it has yet to be published as i understand the situation. You may have gleaned your conclusion from the "Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans Entering the Catholic Church" but not from the actual Constitution (which is described in the Note as "forthcoming").

Philip, good to see you back (albeit different site), our differences notwithstanding. Hope your studies in Rome are going well.

No, it only said he could not become a bishop. That must mean he CAN be a priest!

What makes you believe all people are sinners?

Paulte, the Church of Rome acknowledges the sacramental validity of proper baptisms performed in other Christian churches and communities. This recognition would necessarily extend to churches in the Anglican Communion.

So, if I understand this correctly..

....

No, that is not it. Byzantine Rite Catholics have a married priesthood. It is a discipline in the Latin Rite portion of hte Catholic Church.

"So, if I understand this correctly, you can be a married priest as long as you come from another denomination first and convert to Catholicism. However, if you are a cradle Catholic, you can't be a married priest."

Not quite. In this new arrangement, married men who are cradle Catholics would be able to be ordained as priests in the new "personal ordinariate."

Also, of course, men who are cradle Catholics have always been able to be ordained as priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

I agree. It is unfathomable that the Vatican can be so welcoming of unhappy Anglicans, but so punitive towards cradle Catholics. What about a personal prelature for married RC priests? In America alone that could add 12,000 priests to the fold tomorrow. How much more effective could we be with them back in the saddle? How many parishes would have to forego weekday or Sunday Mass if we welcomed these brothers back with their wives?
This disgusts me. B-16 is as bad as JPII.

Wll, you hit the nail on the head. What an extraordinary state of affairs! I think, myself, that I have a vocation as a priest. I was asked at my good SJ school whether I might consider being a priest, but that was far out of any conception I had of myself. I said, in effect, Good heavens no! I suppose I had met rather a lot of them, they taught us horrid little boys every day. And I suppose sex and masturbation had taught me that I was entirely unsuitable for the preisthood. Certainly sex was not susceptible to being treated in any logical way, and was learnt by me at any rate in furtive hidden ways. In due course I met a girl at university who so impressed me with the courage she showed in qustioning everything said by a male,-- and of course we talked into the wee hours as people that age do,-- that I fell heavily in love and married her just as soon as it was possible, money-wise. After our 4 daughters had left home, I was asked to edit a small catholic monthly magazine by a lovable and far sighted and progressive parish priest = I suspect they are few and far between. I had to produce an editorial every month, found the process so enjoyable that now in old age 71, I am willing to write on almost any religious topic at all. But I found myself beginning more and more saying "I am a Christian first and and a Catholic second." It distresses me greatly when I find more and more confirmation of this veiw, daily. However, I am also convinced that a) the Catholic Church has preserved the faith of the Apostles, against all probability considering the amazingly human frailties of her most senior clergy from Pope downwards, as well as ditto ditto of the laity, who, when they get together can be guaranteed to spnd more time quarrelling in a very hidden, very polite, very ! Christian !way about which hymns should be sung.......... This preservation to me provides objective proof that the Holy Spirit is awake and active supporting the faith of our fathers. b)that I want and - dare I say - I have an obligation to join that work in what ever way is open to me. I sent some of my work to our local bishop offering my services as a writer. He was good enough to reply and said that I should keep on writing -FOR MY OWN BENEFIT. while saying that "your pieces read like homilies"! Yes, I do wite homilies and feel called to share them with those who are vaguely Catholic and "could do better". and lastly C) I have become convinced that the dear old Roman Catholic Church has become so clergy-bond that it cannot see that the laity must also be a source of spiritual salvation, on an equal basis with the clergy. The laity want holiness as much as the clergy. The laity can consecrate everything to the Lord as effectively as any Trappist monk - I have known several of my own relatives who did exactly that.
But the concerns of the laity are vastly different from the clergy. It has been wisely said that if the bed situation is good, the marriage is sound. Because the clergy have given up sex they cannot be expected to give guidance in that area. It is so silly for oldsters like me who remember exactly what it was like to lie with the same woman for many years - and how they had to "fake it" on occasion, for the sake of their partner etc etc etc etc. And budgeting when your firm has gone bust and your wife is the Sole Breadwinner - how do you cope? Do you ask a priest for help in such delicate situations? No, Confession is for confessing sin. No. Most men think that it is their duty to tell women to do things o we gt a lot ofCatholcslic marriges ending in divorce or which is even worse fridgid silence only broken by the most wounding or cutting remark that either can think of. The psycholocal damage damage to the children is of course invisible and incalculable.
I must stop now. But what were they thinking of?

Best regards Charles Forder

When you find that denomination that allows married women priests, would you let the rest of us know...
I am thinking about bailing ship on this one.

As a cradle catholic preparing for priesthood, I have absolutely no problem, qualm, envy, or otherwise feel the pastoral provision is inconsistent or inequitable. It is done as an exception to the rule, to allow those who were married and acted as pastoral ministers because they were responding to their call as they understood it given their faith tradition. When they finally came to the fullness of truth in the Catholic Church, they still sought to live their calling and thus got permission to be ordained even though they were married men.

In a more "zoomed out" sense, God's providence it at work here, allowing these men to live out their vocation as they were meant to.

Also, there are relatively few pastoral provision priests ministering in the Latin Rite. This isn't exactly common. Even with the incoming Anglicans, it is not like married priests will be super-common.

Celibacy is the norm, and we seminarians are comfortable with that and see it as an integral part of our vocation to the Church. Why is everyone so concerned to change something that is, on the whole, supported by those who live it?

According to the CCC, paragraph 1089, "apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith." The key words here are 'Christian faith.'

See http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt1.shtml#2089 .

Whatever faults we may find with this AB's background, I think the word 'apostasy' is the wrong description/conclusion. It's obvious he has not repudiated, much less totally repudiated, the Christian faith.

There may be another word to describe his situation, but 'apostasy' is not it.

According to official Catholic teaching, two validly baptized Protestants (i.e., baptized in the Anglican, Lutheran, or another Christian denomination according to the Trinitarian formula) who marry without any impediment/obstacle as understood by the Catholic Church, are regarded as having entered into a valid sacramental marriage. Should the couple later enter the Catholic Church, they need not have their marriage validated before a Catholic priest. They would be welcome to eucharistic reception.

On the other hand, if the above Protestant married couple divorce and one/both remarry somebody else (either before or after joining the Catholic Church), they would be instructed not to receive holy communion unless their second marriage is declared null and void by a Catholic marriage tribunal. This reality/requirement may come as a shock to any remarried Anglican couples who should become Roman Catholic.

At the request of and by direction of MEN. She is just the pawn.

And what exactly is that supposed to mean?

Do you actually think that a woman cannot be as duplicitous, underhanded and prejudgemental as a male? You obviously haven't spent much time in the corporate world, have you?

The doctrinal assessment of LCWR is being conducted by Bishop Blair of Toledo.

Ummm... I don't know if you noticed, but the LCWR investigation is being conducted by the VATICAN, using a compliant yes-man (woman) to do their dirty work.

Caleb Johnson, the "doctrinal assessment" of the LCWR is being done by Bishop Leonard P. Blair, Bishop of Toledo, OH. I have his letter in front of me, a letter which he wrote to me in response to my letter of support of the Sisters. The words "doctrinal assessment" are his words. His letter of explanation has a disingenuous tone which leads me to believe that this is, indeed, an investigation.
The "apostolic visitation of the non cloistered sisters is being done by a Sister who was appointed by Franc Cardinal Rode, Prefect Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. You can be assured that she is working according to direct orders from the Cardinal. Caleb, men are the engines hiding behind the facade of a compliant Sister. If you would read the questionares sent to the superiors of the various orders, you would have to concur that it is, indeed, another investigation.

At the direction of a man.